Do you believe we should rebuild New Orleans. Try to view this from a scientist view?

Question

New orleans has become somewhat a burden and the levees are destroying the wetlands on the gulf, so whats next...

Answer 1

According to scientists, the melting ice is going to cause a rise in the levels of the oceans by a meter within this century.  Added to that, New Orleans is sinking several inches a year.   These people who chose to live there can no longer get insurance.  It sounds like a good place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Answer 2

Yes but it will take years before it's back to the way it was. It can't happen in just a few years

Answer 3

No, we should not waste our treasure on New Orleans.

Answer 4

Rebuilding New Orleans is not optional.

The historical and cultural aspects of New Orleans are usually mentioned whenever the topic of rebuilding is brought up. Those are legitimate factors, but they are NOT the reason people are back or why New Orleans is important to the rest of the USA.

New Orleans is an essential link in our national transportation system. The Port of New Orleans is an obvious element of that and the port is either the largest or 2nd largest port each year in the USA (tons of cargo).

Rail and highway transportation are also focused on New Orleans and NOLA is one of the top three junctions for traffic between east and west in the USA.

More than a third of America's energy is either produced in southeast Louisiana or is imported through SE LA. The infrastructure that supports the energy industry is centered in New Orleans. What may turn out to be the largest oil field in North America was discovered offshore of LA in 2006.

More than 25% of America's refining capacity is in the New Orleans area, and 60% of the aviation fuel used in the USA is produced here.

A large percentage of America's non-petroleum chemical industry is in the area.

There are 6 full universities, 2 medical schools, 2 law schools, a dental school, 3 nursing schools, a pharmacy school, 2 theological seminaries, and a variety of junior colleges & technical schools in New Orleans.

NASA manufactures the fuel tanks for the space shuttle in New Orleans, and will manufacture parts of the next generation of spacecraft.

A significant percentage of America's shipbuilding & ship repair industry is in the New Orleans area.

A variety of other manufacturers have factories in New Orleans, such as Bell-Textron.

It is possible to move much of the industry, transportation facilities, and other infrastructure, though only at HUGE expense. It is not possible to move the Mississippi River or the oil fields. It would cost trillions of dollars to even TRY to replace New Orleans.

For literally a few billion dollars (that should have been spent before Katrina) we can build sufficient hurricane protection around New Orleans so the catastrophe of Katrina never happens again.

In contrast, can we protect Los Angeles and San Francisco from earthquakes? Can Seattle be protected from volcanoes and tsunamis? Should the mid-west be evacuated because there are tornadoes? New York and Miami are at even more risk than NOLA from hurricanes - should we abandon New York and Miami?

The federal government spent $14 Billion to build a tunnel under Boston's harbor for commuters - not even for protection. The cost of a tunnel needs to be spent on hurricane protection for New Orleans (over a period of years). Restoring the wetlands lost due to providing the rest of America with oil also must be done.

Notes in response to comments in other answers:

The New Orleans metro area had a population of about 1,400,000 before Katrina and it is at about 1,200,000 now.  The "missing" 200,000+ resided in the worst flooded parts of the metro area.  It is not some small town you can easily & cheaply move.

Half of New Orleans is at or above sea level, and much of the part that is lower is only a little below sea level. The city flooded so badly because Katrina's storm surge was MUCH higher than sea level. Every coastal city in the country (maybe in the world) would have been flooded by Katrina - which was the strongest storm ever recorded to strike North America.

There is no precedent for the disaster that was Katrina. An area larger than Great Britain was wrecked by the storm and recovery from such a huge event is not easy, quick, or cheap.

Note that New Orleans is NOT "hurricane-prone". The last hurricane to strike New Orleans before Katrina was Betsy in 1965. Before that was the "storm of 1947" which was a minimal hurricane and was before the storms were named.

New Orleans as a whole is not sinking - that is a myth perpetrated by the news media.  The parts of the city most recently drained ARE subsiding, but that is something that happens whenever you drain a swamp.

Answer 5

Building a city below sea level when there is an abudance of land above sea level is beyond stupid.  Move the people to a different area and bulldoze anything that's below sea level.

Answer 6

Within a few days after Katrina, I was signing e-mails "No more levee's, build it up only at a higher level." and people got really nasty.   Now businesses are demanding repairs to their expensive access paths without having any place for workers to live.

Answer 7

Only if we rebuild it on 20ft high concrete platform that could hold the entire city!

And yes that would make about as much sense as rebuilding it using levees!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

new orleans is a major world port because it's access to the mississippi river. that river handles tons of products from ohio and the entire midwest. the cost of shipping by barge is much less than rail or truck. it would have a  serious effect on the u.s. economy if we closed this port .for that reason alone i think we should rebuild this city..

Answer 9

New Orleans is below sea level, true, but it wasn't always.  Water is able to overcome the city because we've "rerouted" the Mississippi River to suit our purposes.  That, along with the eroding coast and loss of barrier islands that have provided a buffer from hurricanes in the past, has brought the problems we see today.  It's possible to work on wetlands restoration, but most don't think we should invest money.  For the most part, these same people don't realize there are several hundred miles of pipeline that service the US in that area of the gulf and the slow destruction of it will hit everyone's wallet at the gas pumps.  Ever notice the price of gas goes up slightly when there's a hurricane threat in the Gulf?

I'm not saying the government should help finance vulnerable neighborhoods only to have it happen again, but we definitely should invest in wetlands restoration.

Also, IMO, it's very un-American to allow a major city to fall in ruins like a third world country.

Answer 10

So if your city gets in trouble let's just forget it?

NO is part of America.  Let's help!

Answer 11

I would let people rebuild who wanted to pay for it. Don't think the government should invest in a disaster-prone area.